This is the place where I will conduct my local surgery work. Tell me what you think, what you want me to do, what legislation I should introduce, what you think I should support and oppose, and so forth. Tell me how you think I am doing my job, and how I can improve. Ass kissing is permitted as well.

Hello, Senator Torie. I am a new constituent of yours. I was just reading the thread about the Partisanship Requirement Amendment. Though I'm glad to see it fail in its current form, I would support an amended version.

The amended version would require people to affiliate with a major party or as independents. If someone wants to start a new party, they could start a thread asking people to join. Once it reaches 5 citizens (including the party founder), it can begin operating as a major party.

I understand that the amendment was brought up to make the game more interesting. However, getting rid of one-person joke parties is a much more interesting way of doing it than getting rid of them & independent registration as well. Just my $0.02.

Welcome to the Pacific region, PiT, and thanks for dropping by. You seem to be suggesting stamping out anemic parties. I am not sure what the difference is between anemic parties, and subsisting as an independent, as I am doing at the moment, as far as the game works. Perhaps you may wish to elaborate on this. I am prepared to introduce bills that constituents want me to introduce (even if I may not be in love with them myself), as long as we can hash out the details, and understand the implications.

Though a large majority of people belonging to minor parties would probably become independents, we don't know that all would. As was pointed out in the debate over the amendment, there's no real benefit to joining a party. It's probable that some citizens considered joining a major party, but decided to form a minor one, since there's no real downside.

It would make the game more interesting in that we could see if these minor party members are truly independents or if they stand with a major party. This would make it easier to gauge party strength on a regional basis.

However, this would have to go hand-in-hand with some sort of benefit. Maybe the parties could hold conventions where they develop their platforms. Here, members could try to steer their party towards emphasizing issues that they care about. The convention would vote on its platform, which naturally would only be open to members of said party.

If a citizen becomes disenchanted with the direction of his/her party, s/he would have the recourse of trying to form another party/joining another party/becoming an independent. This would discourage any two parties from being too similar, as any sudden change in platform could cause their members to defect to the other, similar party.

There could be additional or alternate perks to being a member of a party. That's just the one that occurred to me, since it would be a perk to being a member of a party (you can help direct regional/national policy) while also being a perk to being an independent (no expectation of supporting any party's platform). Again, just my $0.02.

The observation that comes to my mind, is that each and every one of us is so "notorious," that we tend to vote the notoriety, rather than the party. The parties play no intermediating role, and will not, unless those not within a party, don't obtain votes they otherwise would get, and for that to happen, it may be that the law would have to incorporate some auto vote mechanism. In other words, if you belong to a party, and the party endorses, than your vote is automatically counted for the endorsed candidate as a party member, at least to the extent you voted on the endorsement, one way or the other. If you didn't vote for the endorsement, then you can't vote at all.

I assume that some sort of primary would be implemented in that event. In that case, really divisive primaries would basically never happen, as no one would want to emerge the winner with the support of basically half his/her party. It would also give independents a great deal of power, since they would be free to vote for whomever's running.

However, any suggestion is better than no suggestion. It's just that the party system is so irrelevant under the current rules, that these suggestions are needed to make belonging to a party worthwhile.

Maybe, there could be a closed primary, but one that's not binding for party members. Since citizens here vote for people over parties, they would be motivated to join the party of their favorite poster, to help him/her win whatever office that s/he is running for. Just a thought.

I suppose an amendment including the non-binding primary would look like this:

Amendment for the Empowerment of Parties

1. Membership of a party whose membership numbers fewer than five registered voters is hereby declared null and void. Any member of such a party has one week to attempt to increase the party's membership to five citizens once again, or to re-register. If said citizen re-registers within the time frame, his/her ability to vote in any election held within the next ten days shall not be infringed.

2. If two or more members of a given party declare candidacy in the same regularly- scheduled general election, then 96 hours before the commencement of a general election, a primary election for that party will be held. The polls shall remain open for 72 hours, and be administered by the party chair. Any citizen in good standing with the party may vote in said primary election. There shall be as many primary elections as there are parties with multiple candidates seeking office in the relevant general election.

3. If the party chair gives advance warning that s/he will be unable to administer said primary election, s/he shall empower any citizen in good standing with the party to administer the election. If the party chair fails to properly administer the election, through failure to open or close the booth in a timely fashion, the primary shall be declared null and void, and all candidates of that party for the relevant general election shall appear on the general election ballot, regardless of any attempt by a candidate to withdraw his/her name from the ballot.

2. All parties shall have a party chair. Elections for party chair must take place at least once every six months.

It didn't occur to me to add this, since all major parties have a party chair (last time I checked). Obviously, this election will be closed, so here's the revised text (changes bolded, except the title, which is normally bold):

Amendment for the Empowerment of Parties

1. Membership of a party whose membership numbers fewer than five registered voters is hereby declared null and void. Any member of such a party has one week to attempt to increase the party's membership to five citizens once again, or to re-register. If said citizen re-registers within the time frame, his/her ability to vote in any election held within the next ten days shall not be infringed.

2. If two or more members of a given party declare candidacy in the same regularly- scheduled general election, then 96 hours before the commencement of a general election, a primary election for that party will be held. The polls shall remain open for 72 hours, and be administered by the party chair, who shall be elected from among the members of said party, by members of said party, to terms of six months in duration. Any citizen in good standing with the party may vote in said primary election. There shall be as many primary elections as there are parties with multiple candidates seeking office in the relevant general election.

3. If the party chair gives advance warning that s/he will be unable to administer said primary election, s/he shall empower any citizen in good standing with the party to administer the election. If the party chair fails to properly administer the election, through failure to open or close the booth in a timely fashion, the primary shall be declared null and void, and all candidates of that party for the relevant general election shall appear on the general election ballot, regardless of any attempt by a candidate to withdraw his/her name from the ballot.

Change "six months" to "no more than six months". The obvious time to hold a vote would be at a party convention, and those are held somewhat irregularly.

I have reservations about that change only because it seems like the government is deciding too much party policy. It seems like such a plan would basically be asking the parties to hold conventions at least once every six months (then again, we ARE setting guidelines for when primaries are held, which is already plenty of good ole guvmint in our parties ). I'll tentatively add it now, though I would like to see what Torie, or anyone else for that matter, thinks about it.

The 3rd draft of the proposed amendment:

Amendment for the Empowerment of Parties

1. Membership of a party whose membership numbers fewer than five registered voters is hereby declared null and void. Any member of such a party has one week to attempt to increase the party's membership to five citizens once again, or to re-register. If said citizen re-registers within the time frame, his/her ability to vote in any election held within the next ten days shall not be infringed.

2. If two or more members of a given party declare candidacy in the same regularly- scheduled general election, then 96 hours before the commencement of a general election, a primary election for that party will be held. The polls shall remain open for 72 hours, and be administered by the party chair, who shall be elected from among the members of said party, by members of said party, to terms of no more than six months in duration. Any citizen in good standing with the party may vote in said primary election. There shall be as many primary elections as there are parties with multiple candidates seeking office in the relevant general election.

3. If the party chair gives advance warning that s/he will be unable to administer said primary election, s/he shall empower any citizen in good standing with the party to administer the election. If the party chair fails to properly administer the election, through failure to open or close the booth in a timely fashion, the primary shall be declared null and void, and all candidates of that party for the relevant general election shall appear on the general election ballot, regardless of any attempt by a candidate to withdraw his/her name from the ballot.

Change "six months" to "no more than six months". The obvious time to hold a vote would be at a party convention, and those are held somewhat irregularly.

I have reservations about that change only because it seems like the government is deciding too much party policy. It seems like such a plan would basically be asking the parties to hold conventions at least once every six months (then again, we ARE setting guidelines for when primaries are held, which is already plenty of good ole guvmint in our parties ). I'll tentatively add it now, though I would like to see what Torie, or anyone else for that matter, thinks about it.

Well, the 2nd draft forced parties to hold elections every 6 months. I think this is far more flexible.

Change "six months" to "no more than six months". The obvious time to hold a vote would be at a party convention, and those are held somewhat irregularly.

I have reservations about that change only because it seems like the government is deciding too much party policy. It seems like such a plan would basically be asking the parties to hold conventions at least once every six months (then again, we ARE setting guidelines for when primaries are held, which is already plenty of good ole guvmint in our parties ). I'll tentatively add it now, though I would like to see what Torie, or anyone else for that matter, thinks about it.

Well, the 2nd draft forced parties to hold elections every 6 months. I think this is far more flexible.

To be honest, I had not thought about the ramifications of that change. I just figured that the party chair would just be able to PM all the members & then they could go hold the election (with the results submitted to the necessary authority).

Anyway, I'm thinking about a change that would prevent a citizen from serving as party chair for consecutive terms, in order to cut down on beaurocracy. It's nice to get some fresh blood in the leadership every now & then.

Change "six months" to "no more than six months". The obvious time to hold a vote would be at a party convention, and those are held somewhat irregularly.

I have reservations about that change only because it seems like the government is deciding too much party policy. It seems like such a plan would basically be asking the parties to hold conventions at least once every six months (then again, we ARE setting guidelines for when primaries are held, which is already plenty of good ole guvmint in our parties ). I'll tentatively add it now, though I would like to see what Torie, or anyone else for that matter, thinks about it.

Well, the 2nd draft forced parties to hold elections every 6 months. I think this is far more flexible.

To be honest, I had not thought about the ramifications of that change. I just figured that the party chair would just be able to PM all the members & then they could go hold the election (with the results submitted to the necessary authority).

Anyway, I'm thinking about a change that would prevent a citizen from serving as party chair for consecutive terms, in order to cut down on beaurocracy. It's nice to get some fresh blood in the leadership every now & then.

Change "six months" to "no more than six months". The obvious time to hold a vote would be at a party convention, and those are held somewhat irregularly.

I have reservations about that change only because it seems like the government is deciding too much party policy. It seems like such a plan would basically be asking the parties to hold conventions at least once every six months (then again, we ARE setting guidelines for when primaries are held, which is already plenty of good ole guvmint in our parties ). I'll tentatively add it now, though I would like to see what Torie, or anyone else for that matter, thinks about it.

Well, the 2nd draft forced parties to hold elections every 6 months. I think this is far more flexible.

To be honest, I had not thought about the ramifications of that change. I just figured that the party chair would just be able to PM all the members & then they could go hold the election (with the results submitted to the necessary authority).

Anyway, I'm thinking about a change that would prevent a citizen from serving as party chair for consecutive terms, in order to cut down on beaurocracy. It's nice to get some fresh blood in the leadership every now & then.

We should leave that to the parties to decide.

You have a point there. Oh well, any critiques or concerns regarding article III of the proposed amendment?

3. If the party chair gives advance warning that s/he will be unable to administer said primary election, s/he shall empower any citizen in good standing with the party to administer the election. If the party chair or other designated elections administrator fails to properly administer the election, through failure to open or close the booth in a timely fashion, the primary shall be declared null and void, and allno candidates of that party for the relevant general election shall appear on the general election ballot, regardless of any attempt by a candidate to add or withdraw his/her name from the ballot.Adding a bit of an incentive for the chair to do his job.

3. If the party chair gives advance warning that s/he will be unable to administer said primary election, s/he shall empower any citizen in good standing with the party to administer the election. If the party chair or other designated elections administrator fails to properly administer the election, through failure to open or close the booth in a timely fashion, the primary shall be declared null and void, and allno candidates of that party for the relevant general election shall appear on the general election ballot, regardless of any attempt by a candidate to add or withdraw his/her name from the ballot.Adding a bit of an incentive for the chair to do his job.

I see you fixed an oversight of mine. Besides that, I realize that my initial suggestion for punishment wasn't really that great. If all candidates remain on the ballot, one could "de facto withdraw" & tell his/her supporters to vote for the other candidate. However, I think that it is unnecessary to keep the part about withdrawing his/her name from the ballot in light of the change in punishment.

So here's the 4th draft:

Amendment for the Empowerment of Parties

1. Membership of a party whose membership numbers fewer than five registered voters is hereby declared null and void. Any member of such a party has one week to attempt to increase the party's membership to five citizens once again, or to re-register. If said citizen re-registers within the time frame, his/her ability to vote in any election held within the next ten days shall not be infringed.

2. If two or more members of a given party declare candidacy in the same regularly- scheduled general election, then 96 hours before the commencement of a general election, a primary election for that party will be held. The polls shall remain open for 72 hours, and be administered by the party chair, who shall be elected from among the members of said party, by members of said party, to terms of no more than six months in duration. Any citizen in good standing with the party may vote in said primary election. There shall be as many primary elections as there are parties with multiple candidates seeking office in the relevant general election.

3. If the party chair gives advance warning that s/he will be unable to administer said primary election, s/he shall empower any citizen in good standing with the party to administer the election. If the party chair or other designated elections administrator fails to properly administer the election, through failure to open or close the booth in a timely fashion, the primary shall be declared null and void, and allno candidates of that party for the relevant general election shall appear on the general election ballot, regardless of any attempt by a candidate to addor withdraw his/her name from the ballot.

I decided to change some language to make it more internally consistent, as well as to be more specific.

I guess you could call this the 5th draft :

Amendment for the Empowerment of Parties

1. Membership of a party whose membership numbers fewer than five registered voters is hereby declared null and void. Any member of such a party has one week upon finding by the Secretary of Forum Affairs that said party is no longer viable to attempt to increase the party's membership to five citizens once again, or to re-register. If said citizen re-registers within the time frame, his/her abilityright to vote in any election held within the next ten days shall not be infringed.

2. If two or more members of a given party declare candidacy in the same regularly- scheduled general election, then 96 hours before the commencement of the relevant general election, a primary election for that party willshall be held. The polls shall remain open for 72 hours, and be administered by the party chair, who shall be elected from among the membership of said party, by the membership of said party, to terms of no more than six months in duration. Any citizen in good standing with the party may vote in said primary election. There shall be as many primary elections as there are parties with multiple candidates seeking office in the relevant general election.

3. If the party chair gives advance warning that s/he will be unable to administer said primary election, s/he shall empower any citizen in good standing with the party to administer thesaid primary election. If the party chair or other designated elections administrator fails to properly administer the election, through failure to open or close the booth in a timely fashion, the primary shall be declared null and void, and no candidates of that party for the relevant general election shall appear on the general election ballot, regardless of any attempt by a candidate to add his/her name from the ballot. I am considering removing the requirement that the polls for a primary remain open for 72 hours. After all, the point of the proposed amendment is to empower the parties. As such, it should only regulate their behavior in ways that would help see it implemented.

I doubt that the parties would deviate too far from the customary 72 hours. If they do, the members of the party could protest, or refuse to support the nominee. To protect the rights of the people, though, if this part were stricken, I would support a replacement part that would provide that the party must give the times that the primary begins & ends ahead of time.

I decided to change some language to make it more internally consistent, as well as to be more specific.

I guess you could call this the 5th draft :

Amendment for the Empowerment of Parties

1. Membership of a party whose membership numbers fewer than five registered voters is hereby declared inviable, and thus null and void. Any member of such a party has one week upon finding by the Secretary of Forum Affairs that said party is no longer viable to attempt to increase the party's membership to five citizens once again, or to re-register. If said citizen re-registers within the time frame, his/her right to vote in any election held within the next ten days shall not be infringed.

2. If two or more members of a given party declare candidacy in the same regularly- scheduled general election, then 96 hours1 to 3 weeks before the commencement of the relevant general election, a primary election for that party shall be held. The polls shall remain open for 72 hours, and be administered by the party chair, who shall be elected from among the membership of said party, by the membership of said party, to terms of no more than six months in duration. Any citizen in good standing with the party may vote in said primary election. There shall be as many primary elections as there are parties with multiple candidates seeking office in the relevant general election.

The 5th amendment timetable allows only one day for the general election campaign. This way, there is time for GE campaigning, a runoff (if needed), and flexibility for the party chair in opening the election.

3. If the party chair gives advance warning that s/he will be unable to administer said primary election, s/he shall empower any citizen in good standing with the party to administer said primary election. If the party chair or other designated elections administrator fails to properly administer the election, through failure to open or close the booth in a timely fashion, the primary shall be declared null and void, and no candidates of that party for the relevant general election shall appear on the general election ballot, regardless of any attempt by a candidate to add his/her name from the ballot. I am considering removing the requirement that the polls for a primary remain open for 72 hours. After all, the point of the proposed amendment is to empower the parties. As such, it should only regulate their behavior in ways that would help see it implemented.

I doubt that the parties would deviate too far from the customary 72 hours. If they do, the members of the party could protest, or refuse to support the nominee. To protect the rights of the people, though, if this part were stricken, I would support a replacement part that would provide that the party must give the times that the primary begins & ends ahead of time.

What does everyone think?

I think the 72 hours rule is fine. It's the only voting time in use for any sort of election, and it provides a safeguard.Would this really need an amendment?

2. If two or more members of a given party declare candidacy in the same regularly- scheduled general election, then 96 hours1 to 3 weeks before the commencement of the relevant general election, a primary election for that party shall be held. The polls shall remain open for 72 hours, and be administered by the party chair, who shall be elected from among the membership of said party, by the membership of said party, to terms of no more than six months in duration. Any citizen in good standing with the party may vote in said primary election. There shall be as many primary elections as there are parties with multiple candidates seeking office in the relevant general election.

The 5th amendment timetable allows only one day for the general election campaign. This way, there is time for GE campaigning, a runoff (if needed), and flexibility for the party chair in opening the election.

I agree with this to some extent. The reason that I set the timetable that I did was because the deadline for declaring as a candidate for Senator or President is one week before the election. That would have to be changed for such an early primary to work, since otherwise, one could file after his/her party's primary & not have to deal with it.

Implementing your other suggestion though, here's the 6th draft:

Amendment for the Empowerment of Parties

1. Membership of a party whose membership numbers fewer than five registered voters is hereby declared inviable, and thus null and void. Any member of such a party has one week upon finding by the Secretary of Forum Affairs that said party is no longer viable to attempt to increase the party's membership to five citizens once again, or to re-register. If said citizen re-registers within the time frame, his/her right to vote in any election held within the next ten days shall not be infringed.

2. If two or more members of a given party declare candidacy in the same regularly- scheduled general election, then 96 hours before the commencement of the relevant general election, a primary election for that party shall be held. The polls shall remain open for 72 hours, and be administered by the party chair, who shall be elected from among the membership of said party, by the membership of said party, to terms of no more than six months in duration. Any citizen in good standing with the party may vote in said primary election. There shall be as many primary elections as there are parties with multiple candidates seeking office in the relevant general election.

3. If the party chair gives advance warning that s/he will be unable to administer said primary election, s/he shall empower any citizen in good standing with the party to administer said primary election. If the party chair or other designated elections administrator fails to properly administer the election, through failure to open or close the booth in a timely fashion, the primary shall be declared null and void, and no candidates of that party for the relevant general election shall appear on the general election ballot, regardless of any attempt by a candidate to add his/her name from the ballot. I don't know that it requires a constitutional amendment. However, Torie asked me to draw up a proposed amendment. Speaking of Torie, where is he? I'm going to need someone to introduce the bill to the senate, & I want his approval of it.

2. If two or more members of a given party declare candidacy in the same regularly- scheduled general election, then 96 hours1 to 3 weeks before the commencement of the relevant general election, a primary election for that party shall be held. The polls shall remain open for 72 hours, and be administered by the party chair, who shall be elected from among the membership of said party, by the membership of said party, to terms of no more than six months in duration. Any citizen in good standing with the party may vote in said primary election. There shall be as many primary elections as there are parties with multiple candidates seeking office in the relevant general election.

The 5th amendment timetable allows only one day for the general election campaign. This way, there is time for GE campaigning, a runoff (if needed), and flexibility for the party chair in opening the election.

I agree with this to some extent. The reason that I set the timetable that I did was because the deadline for declaring as a candidate for Senator or President is one week before the election. That would have to be changed for such an early primary to work, since otherwise, one could file after his/her party's primary & not have to deal with it.

Well then, we can make one week the deadline for Independents, and let the parties create their own deadline (within the 1-3 week timetable).

1. Membership of a party whose membership numbers fewer than five registered voters is hereby declared inviable, and thus null and void. Any member of such a party has one week upon finding by the Secretary of Forum Affairs that said party is no longer viable to attempt to increase the party's membership to five citizens once again, or to re-register. If said citizen re-registers within the time frame, his/her right to vote in any election held within the next ten days shall not be infringed.

2. If two or more members of a given party declare candidacy in the same regularly- scheduled general election, then 96 hours beforeat a time no less than one week before the commencement of the relevant general election, a primary election for that party shall be held. The polls shall remain open for 72 hours, and be administered by the party chair, who shall be elected from among the membership of said party, by the membership of said party, to terms of no more than six months in duration. Any citizen in good standing with the party may vote in said primary election. There shall be as many primary elections as there are parties with multiple candidates seeking office in the relevant general election.

3. If the party chair gives advance warning that s/he will be unable to administer said primary election, s/he shall empower any citizen in good standing with the party to administer said primary election. If the party chair or other designated elections administrator fails to properly administer the election, through failure to open or close the booth in a timely fashion, the primary shall be declared null and void, and no candidates of that party for the relevant general election shall appear on the general election ballot, regardless of any attempt by a candidate to add his/her name from the ballot.

4. A candidate seeking office independent of any major party shall declare his/her candidacy no less than one week before the commencement of the relevant, regularly-scheduled general election. A candidate seeking office as an affiliated member of a major party shall declare his/her candidacy by a deadline set by the party chair, no less than one week, but no more than three weeks before the commencement of the relevant, regularly-scheduled general election. This deadline shall be set by the party chair no less than one month before the commencement of the relevant, regularly-scheduled general election. As I'm sure you noticed, I added an article IV. The nice thing about the change is that now major party candidates are afforded a comparable amount of time to campaign compared to independents, which previous drafts did not give.